| After 20 years of having courses both accredited | | | | Why do we need accreditation systems anyway? Is |
| and not accredited; we can see that while | | | | it because our teachers are so incompetent and |
| accreditation controls how bad a college can get; it | | | | unethical that they need bureaucrats to control them. |
| also controls how good it can get. | | | | Who then ensures the bureaucrats are competent |
| By definition, accreditation systems are naturally | | | | and ethical though? |
| trying to fit everyone into the same box. | | | | Responses: |
| The problem is that when you have an ethical and | | | | Comment from Stephen Eddy Principal of Health |
| innovative college that is trying to do a better and | | | | Schools Australia November 2007 |
| more efficient job; the system can become very | | | | "With regards to the article written by John Mason, I |
| limiting. It takes money that might otherwise be | | | | agree 100%. As an R.T.O. we are constantly |
| spent on teaching; and redirects that money into | | | | bombarded with bureaucracy, which severely |
| bureaucracy. It stops rapid changes in courses (in a | | | | hampers our ability to adapt course work and be |
| rapidly changing world), and imposes planning and | | | | innovative. It also more importantly impedes our |
| management processes that make it impossible to | | | | quality of material we teach the students. As Natural |
| keep up with the real needs of the world. | | | | Medicine changes so rapidly, the burden of the |
| How much then is accreditation a measure of what is | | | | bureaucracy stifles change, which is essential if we |
| good? Maybe it is no more than just a measure of | | | | are to improve". |
| what is not bad. | | | | Comment from Jerry Mintz at Alternative Education |
| I am forever optimistic; but cannot see how we can | | | | Revolution Network |
| approach improved learning while we limit the scope | | | | "I do agree, John. |
| of innovation. | | | | |